3DJay

I'm citing how 1500+ years of translators have been translating it. You are claiming to know better than 1500+ years worth of translators, without citing ONE translation that agrees with you. I can also provide the exact same way of translating it, in numerous languages.

I've shown how the word is consistently translated. YOU are the one claiming the translators are wrong. YOU are the one that needs to provide some kind of evidence that they're wrong, instead of just your own assertions.

You asserted there wasn't a "δε", in John 20:1, when there was.

"When Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb while it was still dark she is said to have come when it was "early" but the "δε" is left off." ~ You

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 20:1 τη δε μια των σαββατων μαρια η μαγδαληνη ερχεται πρωι σκοτιας ετι ουσης εις το μνημειον και βλεπει τον λιθον ηρμενον εκ του μνημειου

YLT: And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early (there being yet darkness) to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb,

NASB: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.

You speak of "context", but don't seem to understand what "context" means. We are discussing the definition of "δε". When "δε" is the second word in a phrase, it is consistenly translated as "and", especially in the literal translation. When "ην δε" are together, it is consistently translated as "And ... was", or "Now ... was". Or, the "δε" is just dropped, which is fine, according to the English-Greek Lexicon.

I'm done...and, not just John...the Bible is full of them.
YOU are the one ignoring the context of "ην" and "δε", together.

My favorite scholars? You mean 1500+ years of Biblical translators. If they're unreliable as translators, then they're unreliable translators. Fine. Find a reliable source for comparison, JUST ONE...JUST ONE translator, somewhere, that agrees with your ASSERTIONS. Sorry, if I don't think you are reliable. ALL evidence suggests otherwise.

Until then, I'll agree that the Bible is a useless mistranslated book, and hold you to it.


Peace

Larsguy47

That's right, because it's a "cultural" thing they missed. I traced the occurrence to ancient Greek texts as well. So you can quote all the times they missed it, fine with me. It won't change a thing.


The ONLY thing I have to provide you are instances where δε is and is not used with "preparation." That's all. There are 6 references to "preparation" in the gospels and at least two have the same syntax of "it was preparation." We need only to look and see if those references can confirm the actual day of preparation, which we can since it notes when he was placed in the tomb it was just before the sabbath. The ONLY thing I have to establish is that the syntax for "preparation" at John 19:14 is (1) different, and that δε (but) can be understood as meaning "nearly" or "almost" and that is what it does mean. So WE'RE DONE HERE.

Now, just because we're bored now and have lost our gambling money for the day and have nothing to do until tomorrow, we decide to research this syntax usage with times of the day and we find out where this syntax came from and how it works in other scriptures, but it's not necessary. You nor any scholar can get past that John 19:14 uses δε with "preparation" and not a single other scripture; but then John 19:14 is unique since it refers to the day before, not the same day of preparation. It's just that simple. Sending me 18,000,000 verses where δε in other unrelated syntaxes is irrelevant.

"When Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb while it was still dark she is said to have come when it was "early" but the "δε" is left off." ~ You

You must COMPARE this to MARK where it gives the time when Jesus was resurrected, using the same word only with δε. So please post that scripture too. John doesn't use δε and Mark does. Point being if this is as I say, a reference to the "early watch" and δε means "nearly" or "just before" and leaving it off means "during" then it means Jesus rose "just before" 3:00 a.m. and Mary Magdalene came during the early morning watch, which is between 3 am and 6 am basically. This comparison is consistent, of course, with Jesus raising before Mary Magdalene arrived. And it demonstrates that δε is being SELECTIVELY USED and is not to be left untranslated as all the scholars all this time have done.


Again, for the correct COMPARISON, you must post Mark 16:9 and compare the two.

Again, what is going against you is that if what you say is correct and δε is to be ignored or translated as and, it should be consistent. If you have variations in the usage a linguist/translator has to consider whether a word is serving as a special modifier or not in a special syntax. Comparison of any related texts should tell us if this is POSSIBLE. And I only have to show POSSIBILITY, not PROBABILITY here. John 19:14 is "unique" compared to the other uses of "preparation" and that means it can be translated as "nearly preparation". PERIOD. That's because this is definitely not the same day as preparation. But more research has shown that "but morrow" (δε epaurion) was just like our "afternoon" reference. It is simply what they called that part of the day before the next "morrow" which is I believe a reference to the half day, particularly in terms of nighttime, and daytime. "Just before" the morrow would be the approaching 1/4 of the day before. It's like our "afternoon" basically is the period before evening/night. The Jews and Greeks had their references to this as well, particularly when there was activity just before a major "morrow" of the day (i.e. sunrise or nightfall).

For instance, in Greek texts where it was getting light but the sun had not risen yet, obviously people would take advantage of this period of time before the technical sunrise, they would have to refer to this period of time of activity. It's what we call "first light". People do things at "first light". So it became known as "de epaurion" = just before the next day/sunrise.

But it can be confusing just like our "early morning" reference is for hours from midnight to sunrise, but "early in the morning" might be more aptly applied to times shortly after sunrise. But you can see how specific it is. "It was early morning" means something different than "It was early in the morning."

Or take another incredibly profusely used word: "DAY" Depending on the context, day can mean the time of daylight or technically the time that begins immediately after midnight. We have two concepts for the use of "day". But a translator might not see that difference, no more than translators appreciate that when "de epaurion" is used it is a reference to the time from midnight to sunrise, but "next day" works almost as well because seldom is there enough context to truly show the distinction. If I use "but early" to indicate I arrived before 3 a.m. but you don't understand that and ignore "but" and just translate I arrived "early" it still sort of works, so it is behind a blind.

So what we need to do, if you want, is just present an argument for a koine Greek specialist and see what they will say. Quoting from there outdated references is meaningless.

They are not unreliable, just missed this very difficult technicality. It's understandable. But it can be proven by comparison texts. It just improves the references, that's all, but makes John 19:14 explained correctly, not as an error by the writer, but an oversight in the translation.

Great. Be my guest! I've already done the research and I know the history of the reference. That is, is this just a "gospel" thing? Or just a Jewish thing, since "preparation" usage obviously will not be used outside Jewish related texts? Or is this an adapted reference? I found out where it came from. So PLEASE, stay in your little dark space for as long as you can. When the Greek language professors finally come around you can get in the back of the line.


BUT BEFORE YOU LEAVE:

Please post the comparison Greek texts for John 20:1 and Mark 16:9.

There are enough variations in the use of δε with either "early" (proi), "preparation" (paraskue) or "next day"/morrow (epaurion) to deterime whether the use of δε is selective or non-selective. We don't need to see 800,000 references of δε in any other contexts than these.

SO, if you're so energetic, why not post ALL instances for the use of those three Greek terms and then we will look and see how often δε appears with them and without. When it appears with we'll see if by chance the context works better for the period "just before" or not. That is just as we have done with Mark 16:9 vs John 20:1. Jesus rising "just before" 3:00 a.m. and Mary Magdalene coming during the early watch, which is after 3:00 a.m. works. The δε was left off in John because this was after 3:00 a.m. even though it was still dark.


LG47

Larsguy47

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT IDEA! This is great. But this is too broad. What you want to do is find all the references for these times of the day:

EPAURION (morrow, next day) and "EARLY" (proi), first in the gospels, then in other Greek texts. They are not that many.

Once you have them all, we can go through and see if there is "selective" use of "de" with any of these times of the day that I'm claiming refer to specific times of the day. That's what we need to compare. Not references of "de" used in a huge variety of other ways, which it is.

Your comparison idea is great, but it has to be specific.

Thanks.

LG47

3DJay

Two translations, as "but", and neither change the interpretation.

Yadda, yadda...you must not have have read them...

"And the passover of the Jews was nigh"
"and it was a sabbath on that day"
"and the feast of the Jews was nigh"
"and it was a sabbath when Jesus made the clay"
"and it was the third hour, and they crucified him;"

If you don't recognize the context, they are all instances of "ην δε", being used in passages dealing with time. THEY ARE ALL TRANSLATED THE SAME.

THE "δε" IN MARK 16:9 IS TRANSLATED THE SAME WAY.

Why do you keep saying it's left off in John? I just showed you it was there.

τη = on the

"τη δε" is consitently translated as "And on the", or "Now on the", or the "δε" is dropped.

Provide ONE translator, that supports your assertions.


Peace

3DJay

The "but" translations don't affect the interpretation.

Provide ONE translator that supports your assertions.


Peace

Larsguy47

This ABSOLUTELY affects the interpretation. You have a great example.

Here's the translation of hn de prwia

18:28 So they took Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the Praetorium. It was early.

Every translation. Now John stops to provide an independnet statement here to tell us when Jesus was taken to Pilate after he had been seen in the Sanhedrin, which he did not go to until sunrise. So what does "It was early" mean? What time was it?

If he didn't go to the Sanhedrin until after sunrise, which was "early" then what time was he taken to Pilate? How "early" is "early"? What detail is John giving us by this statement? "Early" is very general.

However, John is actually being quite specific. He is giving us near precise time that Jesus was taken to pilate, because de prwia (but early) doesn't mean it was merely early but it was BEFORE EARLY. That is before the early watch! There were two "early" watches. One early morning watch which was from 3-6am, and one "early evening" watch which was from Noon to 3pm. The "late" watch was from 6-9 p.m. The middle evening watch was just called "evening".

Here is an example of the night watches:

Mark 13: 35 "Therefore keep on the watch, for YOU do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or at cockcrowing or early in the morning."

Only the actual Greek text doesn't say "early in the morning", it just says "early" as one of the watches mentioned.

So the watches are:
LATE is 6-9pm
MIDNIGHT 9pm-Midnight
COCKCROWING Midnight-3am
and EARLY (prwia) 3-6am.

The day watches are
MORNING 6-9am
DAY 9am-Noon
EARLY (evening) Noon-3pm
(mid) EVENING 3pm-6pm
and LATE 6-9pm

The "Late" reference here lets understand that there is also an "early" evening. Since it is clear that is was already after sunrise before Jesus went to the Sanhedrine and "but early" is supposed to be "before the early watch" this could not be a reference to before 3 a.m. Thus this is a reference to just before the early evening watch which begins at noon. The Jews began their "evening" at noon. So what John is telling is, more specifically than just "early" is that this is just before Noon.

This makes sense since this is the normal time Pilate would see the public. It is the customary time. Further, if it was "early" otherwise, say early in the morning, one would presume at least before 8 a.m. right? So how is it Jesus was in the Sanhedrin for such a short time say from 6 am and then brought before Pilate who was still having breakfast maybe at 8 a.m. to deal with this? VS the Jews taking him to Pilate at the normally assigned time, which was just before midday?

So it DOES make a difference.

Further, now that we know that Jesus was now already before Pilate the first time around Noontime when he was first brought before him, we absolutely know he must had died on a different day. Because if it was already just before noon the first time Jesus saw Pilate and Pilate had to them have his interrogation and discover he belonged to Herod's district in Galilee and then sent him to Herod unannounced and unexpectedly who then had a trial for him and returned him, and then Jesus' third trial is also around noon, you know that's impossible.

Thus this SYNTAX works here as well. Of course Mark 13:35 does not use DE PRWIA, since that would be inapplicable in this context. So we have a second scripture that does not use DE with PRWIA, where it would not be indicated or even contraindicated.

The more comparison texts you find, therefore, the more apparent there is SELECTIVE USE of de when it comes to times of the day. They definitely do not use it when it references the concept of "during" a certain period, whether the "next day" or a certain "watch" or a specific beginning of the next day like "preparation."

So thanks for indulging me a little longer. These comparisons are good.

In your second comparison the "de" does not occur prior to "of morning" at John 21:4, so this is not a text we can use for comparison.

Thanks.

LG47

3DJay

We are discussing the definition of the word "δε". So you pick the translation that drops it, when there are a number of others that don't. Duh.

The translation was... "And it was early" ..."δε" = "and" ...just like you said it's not supposed to. Then you go blabbering on about the specific time he's giving us. I DON'T CARE! It translated EXACTLY the same way as John 19:14.

"And it was the preparation of the passover"

I DON'T CARE HOW SPECIFIC HE IS. IT TRANSLATED EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

But, I see the problem now...

δε associates with the word in front of it, not the one after it. YOU are just totally misusing the word.

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
abraam egennhsen ton isaak isaak de egennhsen ton iakwb iakwb de egennhsen ton ioudan kai touV adelfouV autou

Latin Vulgate
1:2 Abraham genuit Isaac Isaac autem genuit Iacob Iacob autem genuit Iudam et fratres eius

Young's Literal Translation
1:2 Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren,

The true ordered translation would have been:
abraam (Abraham) egennhsen (begat) ton (this) isaak (Isaac) isaak (Isaac) de (and) egennhsen (begat) ton (this) iakwb (Jacob) iakwb (Jacob) de (and) egennhsen (begat) ton (this) ioudan (Judah) kai (and) touV (these) adelfouV (brethren) autou (his)

As you can see, that's not how δε is translated into English. In English, it always associates with the word, IN FRONT of it.

"kai" is the "and" that associates with the word after it.

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
en de taiV hmeraiV ekeinaiV paraginetai iwannhV o baptisthV khrusswn en th erhmw thV ioudaiaV

Latin Vulgate
3:1 in diebus autem illis venit Iohannes Baptista praedicans in deserto Iudaeae

Young's Literal Translation
3:1 And in those days cometh John the Baptist, proclaiming in the wilderness of Judea,

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
ioudaV ihsou cristou douloV adelfoV de iakwbou toiV en qew patri hgiasmenois kai ihsou cristw tethrhmenoiV klhtoiV

Latin Vulgate
1:1 Iudas Iesu Christi servus frater autem Iacobi his qui in Deo Patre dilectis et Iesu Christo conservatis vocatis

Word for word: Judas Jesus Christ servant brother and James

Young's Literal Translation
1:1 Judas, of Jesus Christ a servant, and brother of James

See. See how it jumps IN FRONT of the word, when it translates to English? See?

Sooooo........ You just don't know what you're talking about.


Peace

Larsguy47

AHA! I see the problem now. We are not discussing the myraid and quote perfuse use of "δε" in all it's applications. We are only discussing it in connection with certain specific times of the day, and that when used in front of that term it means "nearly"/"just before". When it is left off, it means "during" that specified set period of the day. It is demonstrated with the half day "morrow" and with the watches of the day and night, which are three hours each. It is this particular syntax that we're examining. A point lost on you thus far, apparently.

Plus why didn't you do as I asked and give a comparison of Mark 16:9 and John 20:1. Both use prwia (early), one with and one without "δε". Would you mind just comparing those two for a moment? Thanks.


All the other comparisons are great for those OTHER syntaxes, but not for this. Were studyin the use of "δε" being selectively used in front of times of the day to indicate "just before" when used and when not, during. If my supposition is correct then with enough comparison texts, this will bear out consistently. Which it has in all the texts I've been able to compare thus far.

You are far more mezmerized by the fact that Greek scholars haven't caught onto this by now than the obvious improvement in when applied. Yeah, why didn't they notice before, and why have I? Good question. But we both know the answer.

LG47

3DJay

I've already provided you with passages where it is used with that specific time of day. INCLUDING John 18:28, which translates the passage, exactly as does John 19:14.

I've provided you passages where it is used when discussing time, in general, and it is translated exactly the same way.

I've provided you passages where it is used with the proceeding word "hn", and it is translated exactly the same way.

And, I've just shown you how "de" attaches to the word IN FRONT OF IT, NOT the word after it. Exposing that you're totally misusing the word and don't know what you're talking about.

I posted Mark 16:9 already.

YOU'VE YET TO PROVIDE ONE USE OF THE WORD "de" AS MEANING "before".

YOU'VE YET TO PROVIDE ONE TRANSLATOR THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ASSERTIONS.


Peace

Larsguy47

And, of course, since you don't still understand the point, you note that BOTH use "de" in front of a time of day; John 19:14 "preparation"(an equivalent of "morrow"/epaurion), and an "early" (prwia) watch, in this case the early evening watch. In each case I'm translating "de" as "before" in each case. "before preparation" and "before early evening watch". You need an example of where "de" is used where it is clear it cannot be applied to "before" but is a reference to "during." You have not done that yet.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I already told you I trace this to Greek texts and thus this is an adaptation of the use of "de" before the morrow to mean just before. "de" is simply being used in place of "before" in these instances.

Thus you cannot stray too far from the PRESCRIBED times of the day, those references where a specific "watch" or half day (morrow) is in reference. One of your references did not insert "de" in front of "of morning" and therefore it is considered a reference to during the "morning" period, etc. You have not shown any inconsistency. Thus so far, "de" is can be considered to be "selective".

Yes, and that's the problem. It is ignored when it is present and translated as if it's not there. I'm arguing that is not correct. When "de" is present it needs to reference "nearly"/"just before" and the reference needs to be specific to a watch or time of the day and not a general reference.

Sorry, that's not your option if this is an idiomatic reference. Idiomatic expressions don't follow the usual rules. For instance, it could be, originally that the common reference was: "It was but for a minute the next day." But that got to be so long in common use it just got shortened to "But next day." Or maybe the syntax is where "but" (de) modified the term in front of it and that term is now presumed.

It's like how common usages truncates everything: Cellular phone became , cell phone, which became now simply "cell." So with an idiomatic.

Or what about the special social understanding of the word "drink". Lot's of people are understood when they say, "I stopped drinking 2 years ago."

Now in this case, I'd be trying to convince someone this is a reference to drinking alcohol and not drinking anything, but they would then quote me 10,000 references where people are drinking all kinds of things other than alcohol using this word "drinking."

You're saying to me: "Look! "drinking" is used to express everyday drinking, thousands of times." And I'm saying, "I know! I know! But when it is expressed in this setting, "I can go to bars any more, I stopped drinking 2 years ago and I want to stay clean." Then I'd be justified in inserting "drinking alcohol" here so it is better understood. That's how language works. You don't go to other texts to contradict an idiom.

So if the Greeks wanted to break all the rules and just use "de" which might be short for something else, actually and originally used to indicate "just before", placing it before certain specified times of the day, then that's UP TO THEM. You can't go there and tell them they are going against the rules. They probably are, but it doesn't matter. You still have to deal with how THEY are using the words to convey what THEY mean, regardless of the rules.


I did. John 19:14. It's academic. If the context of John 19:14 is the day before preparation, which it is, then "de" is presumed to modify "preparation" and mean some substantive that conveys the previous day. That could be more "almost" than "before", more "nearly" than "yet", it's up to you. As long as it is understood this is not preparation but before preparation.

And I've told you there are none that I know of, I'm claiming they have missed this subtlty. It's something new. Just like the best and most advanced astronomers in ancient history from NASA to Otto Neugebauer and others think Thales could not have predicted a solar eclipse, when in fact he could based upon an eclipse pattern known to the ancients. They have yet to UPDATE. Same here. The experts likely had no reason to pay that much attention to the details since it seems to have worked, or they presume the Bible is full of errors. When you take the Bible seriously and force the point then you discover the precision of everything.


LG47